We have reduced support for legacy browsers.

What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.

What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.

Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »

Why fixing a mistake mid sentence is bad, and makes you a slower typer.
page 2

> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/339170?page=1#posts-7089118):***
>
> Trouble is that the auto-correct doesn’t catch words that are spelt correctly but contextually wrong. We need something on Word that can actually read a text and understand it well enough to tell you that the word you used makes no sense in the sentence.
Not going to happen any time soon. Natural language processing is one of the most difficult fields in modern computation. You’re asking the computer to understand the intent of your turn of phrase better than a human can.
I say better, because miscommunication and misunderstanding happens all the time between humans who share the same language. In order to be a useful, reliable tool, it has got to understand the language and intent of your words far better than that.
It either has to get to know you, the particular user it serves, and your own language usage quirks – following you from computer to computer as your own personal proofreader, or it needs to have a godlike understanding of the written word.

Well, I don’t know if you’d need a good AI or not. I was trying to think of an example of what I meant, like say “the mouse fell to the pot”. The computer would autocorrect that, or at least suggest “did you mean, ‘into the pot’?” So, that wouldn’t hinge on the user’s idiography. Same for bafflegab. I assume most computers have a thesaurus / dictionary built in already, so they won’t red-line a word like “osteolepiformes” (my computer didn’t). All you would need is to add a few more dictionaries to its memory, enough to be able to send up an error flag when someone uses a phrase like ‘non-overlapping magisteriums’, or one of Bush’s political bafflegabs, etc. Plus if someone did write like that, well, the function could always be turned off, like any other default function.

The problem there is, it takes more than knowing a word is ok in a dictionary, to know how to use it correctly. So adding thousands of words to the computer’s dictionary won’t help. For each of those words it has to be taught how they can be used, and how they cannot. Which other words they are ok to be paired up against, and why.
That’s a massive job, and you would have to do the same for each new word you added. So either the computer system needs to be taught how to use the English language from scratch like a human is, and educated to a far higher level so they understand every word and its possible usage ready for when the user might try them in combination in a sentence together, or it has a horrendously massive word association lookup table to use, which has been put together as a work of biblical proportions by that particular nation’s greatest linguists over the course of decades.
The former if the system is capable of learning for itself basically, and the latter if it is not.
In both cases, it still needs all the information about every possible word in the language, and which others it can play nice not just next to, but even in the same sentence or sentence group contextually.
In the latter case it would need to know every possible valid combination for every possible word in the language -hence the biblical size of the resulting database.

Typing slower should not carry as much of a stigma as OP would like it to. Allowing for more typing time — going back and fixing one’s mistakes, proofreading, and etc. allows for a higher degree of correctness, credibility, and clarity; which, on a serious discussion forum, is essential to the reader’s comprehension of the speaker’s argumentation.
Contemporary society focuses too much on only one type of efficiency: quickness. Many times, utilities are created for the sole purpose of making people’s lives quicker (an example I can think of off of the top of my head is Siri, the electronic voice-operator on the newer iPhones). However, obviously that is not the only component to overall quality or efficiency — especially of text. Through this discussion (using text) on an online forum, we are all employing technology to propagate our ideas more efficiently. Accordingly, there are a plethora of ways in which computer technology _could_ make the aforementioned propagation easier for all of us (i.e. employing a type of Siri for the computer); however, costly implementation, device malfunctions, errors in speaking, the inability to convey emotion through speak-to-text devices like Siri, are all contemporary problems that make the keyboard (at least for now) the most efficient way to communicate on the SD forum on Kong. So it is clear to see that “quickness” is not the only component to efficiency; there are also components such as accuracy and reliability…
Therefore, the whole idea that continuing to type and post one’s errors in typing reeks of a philosophy that seeks desperately to try and prove something about something. Not only is it harshly informal, but it also weakens one’s credibility, and most importantly hampers on the overall efficiency of the aforementioned function. Although it may be _quicker_ to type without going back and fixing one’s mistakes, it is less accurate and does not produce consistent, reliable results; the notion is ironically uneconomical and inefficient.

> *Accordingly, there are a plethora of ways in which computer technology _could_ make the aforementioned propagation easier for all of us (i.e. employing a type of Siri for the computer); however, costly implementation, device malfunctions, errors in speaking, the inability to convey emotion through speak-to-text devices like Siri, are all contemporary problems that make the keyboard (at least for now) the most efficient way to communicate on the SD forum on Kong.*
Additionally you then have the problem that you are limiting accessibility to only those who can speak, or who can speak in an understandable manner, or who are not trying to use Kong in a noisy home, or office environment.
Typing is not ideal, no. However, when we move away from it, we will have to think about various embodiment issues and situational awareness of the user, and try and include as many different interface methods for the same result, as is practically possible. Otherwise we end up ostracising individuals who were previously using such web-based forms of communication as a lifeline.

As with many systems – such as Dragon’s NaturallySpeaking et al., speech recognition systems are designed to learn and adapt to the speaker’s voice and intonation. This allows for the software to become more accurate and faster to process our speech. However, speech has many more nuances than written prose – so shouldn’t it be more difficult for a computer to understand the complexity of natural speech rather than our own writing?
In a contextual sense, perhaps speech may be easier to recognise – mere signal comparisons are easier to perform than having to distinguish grammatical and contextual nuances – however, it could be easier for a word processor to understand patterns that are pre-established – patterns that conform to our usual grammatical and contextual rules, such as subject-verb-object in English, and act accordingly.
Take, for instance, the sentence: “The apple ate the worm.” Anyone could see that an inanimate object (fruit in this case) is unable to eat an animal – the subject is inappropriate for the verb and object to make sense. This could be pre-defined or learnt via a similar method to what is used with speech-to-text applications. By breaking the contextual argument down in to several elements, it becomes easier for the processor to understand how the words fit together; eg. inanimate objects cannot perform actions without the aid of an outside agency (“the bowling ball knocked down the pins” could be a counter-example, but these could be specifically defined").
Discuss.

> Here’s another example, when you’re running and you make a mistake on the start, you don’t just stop running and fix the mistake. You see what i’m saying?
Even that will depend on the circumstances. If you’re running in the wrong direction, it would be foolish to continue. If you made a false start, then (assuming you aren’t disqualified automatically) you DO need to start over. In cross country, there are flags marking the course, and you need to run on the correct side of the flags. If you accidentally go on the wrong side of one, failure to go back and do it correctly will result in a disqualification. If your shoelaces are untied, you have the choice of stopping to fix that mistake or attempting to continue, and which choice is better depends on the circumstances (halfway through the 100 meter race at the Olympics is not a place to tie your shoes, but halfway through a 5K charity run it might be a wise thing to do.)
> Going back and fixing is it like baking a cake and having to take it apart to take an ingredient that wasn’t supposed to be in it out.
Oh, come on. If it is reasonably possible to take out the ingredient, OF COURSE you would fix it instead of having a bad cake. “Oops, I put 2 cups of salt instead of sugar into the measuring cup. Instead of dumping that out and putting in sugar instead, I think I’ll continue, waste a bunch of other ingredients, bake a really disgusting salty cake, and just do it right next time.” Is that seriously what you’d do?
> If what you’re saying is that making a bunch of mistakes are bad, is wrong.
The mistakes ARE bad, though. They might be understandable and unavoidable when you’re learning, but they’re still bad.
If you’re typing anything of importance, you probably want zero mistakes. So if you’re typing, and you make a mistake, what’s the best thing to do about it? Correct it right away, or try to remember where your mistake was so you can go back and fix it when you’re finished? What if you make several mistakes? Do you really trust that you will be able to find them all later? And assuming you’re not perfect on the keyboard, you ARE going to make mistakes, so wouldn’t it be better if you have some experience correcting them quickly?

> *Originally posted by **[f1pokerspeed](/forums/9/topics/339170?page=2#posts-7108475):***
>
> Take, for instance, the sentence: “The apple ate the worm.” Anyone could see that an inanimate object (fruit in this case) is unable to eat an animal – the subject is inappropriate for the verb and object to make sense. This could be pre-defined or learnt via a similar method to what is used with speech-to-text applications. By breaking the contextual argument down in to several elements, it becomes easier for the processor to understand how the words fit together; eg. inanimate objects cannot perform actions without the aid of an outside agency (“the bowling ball knocked down the pins” could be a counter-example, but these could be specifically defined").
But you’re giving great examples of why this is so hard to do. The sentence “The apple ate the worm” is more likely to be meant as some sort of ironic reversal than a mistake – google it. Inanimate objects don’t eat? “The acid ate a hole through the beaker” is a perfectly valid sentence. Personification of inanimate objects is fairly common.

> *Originally posted by **[XxsamuroxX](/forums/9/topics/339170?page=1#posts-7084854):***
>
> This paragraph was written about a typing test website. If you read between the liens it can be applied to a lot of things.
>
> We all know that on this site when we make a mistake, we should fix it. Well, no. We should not fix it. Basically in every other realm or instruments and using your fingers, your teachers will tell you, when you make a mistake, keep going. Why? Because if you go back and fix the mistake, you don’t actually fix the problem of making the mistake. You just keep on making mistakes, and come to the habit of fixing the mistakes. They tell you to keep on going because there are other and better way to become a better typer, or a better pianist. The goal is to not make mistakes and type faster, right? Then why do you think it’s harder to type faster when you continue to go back and fix your mistakes? have you noticed that you continue to make the same mistakes, and you continue to go back and fix them? I think that this is an issue a few people understand. I, for one, know that going back and fixing your mistakes is something that is very amateur and naive. It works for me not the fix them, only because i’ve been taught by so many other teachers in my life to never go back and fix your mistake. Why? Because you’re still typing. It’s not like math where you go back and fix the mistakes you’ve made on your problems. This is like running, continuing to type or continuing to play piano or guitar or singing. You don’t stop and fix the mistake because it doesn’t keep you from making them. Getting better and knowing what not to do to not make any mistakes is key. I think this website needs to change their ways of, “You have to fix the mistake underlined in red before continuing,” and believe me, a lot more people would be getting better and the stats would go higher. By why do you have to fix the mistake? It’s already out there, you’ve already made it. Going back and fixing is it like baking a cake and having to take it apart to take an ingredient that wasn’t supposed to be in it out. No, when you make a mistake in the process of baking a cake, you finish the cake. Then you bake a new cake, learn from your mistakes, and you probably won’t make the same mistake twice.
>
> Discuss.
What if you type “I am definitely going to go to the party”, end up writing “I am defiantly going to go to the party” and then send it off because it’s okay to make mistakes?